Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.orgNote: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects.
Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail
address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the
information in the "From:" header!]

Carl Milsted seems to think he knows everything about
all topics. Evidently he doesn't know 'jac' about
Somalia.

His essay in your magazine
is of some interest because of its peculiar lack of a
return e-mail address. Most correspondents in your
very fine letters column include a return address.
Not only does Mr. Milsted refrain from doing so, but
also he doesn't have a contact e-mail of any sort at
his site, ReformTHelp.org. (Reform T Help? Oh, I
see. Reform the LP. How droll. It reminds me of
that domain for Pen Island.) But, of course, his
domain registration is helpful in this respect, as he
doesn't seem to trust anyone who manages a domain
trust.

He writes, "100% of anarchic peoples have been
conquered by governed people, adopted government
internally, or are in a state of civil war (Somalia)."

It is amusing to think of Somalia as a land of
anarchic peoples, since the Somalis are curiously
unwilling to accept that description for themselves.
Rather, the Somalis have what they regard as a natural
law culture. Where their traditional culture has not
been exterminated by troops sent by Milsted's national
government, Somalis are governed by judges who
administer a form of government called kritarchy.

In places where troops from Milsted's national
government were sent, there is now an Islamic courts
government, which appends some elements of Sharia to
traditional Somali laws. Of course, the delightful
"governed people" of whom Milsted thinks so highly
were unable to conquer the Somali peoples. Indeed,
the Somalis massacred some 19 Pakistani troops in May
1993 who attempted to seize a radio station from
Somalis in Mogadishu and shut down freedom of speech.

In July 1993, helicopters paid for with Milsted's
taxes and sent by his government used TOW missiles and
machineguns to slaughter 54 and wound nearly 200
Somalis in an attack on a peaceful meeting of the Habr
Gidr clan. Milsted's government wiped out the
conference that was proposing to sue for peace with
the UN and USA.

Within months, Somali militiamen had armed themselves
with rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers,
invented a method of digging a trench so an RPG could
be fired into the sky without having the backwash cut
the legs out from under them, and shot down six of
Milsted's government's Black Hawk helicopters. Within
a few more months, USA military aircraft were used to
airlift Mohammed Farah Aideed to a peace conference in
Ethiopia, in spite of the fact that other units of the
USA military were still hunting for Aideed. When
Aideed later chose to form a new centralized,
nationalist, socialist government, promising to pay
back the debts of the previous government, and
proclaiming himself interim president, one of his own
clansmen shot him to death.

Now, of course it is my choice to blame Milsted for
his part in this conflict. Whether he supports what
the USA government did in 1993 in occupying a foreign
country, massacring civilians, sending troops,
attempting to kidnap a clan leader, or supporting the
United Nations in its ongoing campaign against freedom
of speech, freedom to keep and bear tools for
self-defense, and other freedoms, doesn't matter a bit
to me. It is his government, he wants it to have some
power, he pays his taxes, and he gets the blame.

Anyone who would like to visit Somalia, as I have
done, to see for themselves, is welcome to contact me.
Unlike the timid Milsted, I do include my e-mail
address with every essay and letter that the editor is
kind enough to publish here. So, get in touch. I can
arrange for an abaan or "patron" to accept you as a
marti or "client" and provide his clan's protection
for your safety. While direct travel into Mogadishu
typically involves paying for your weight in
qat (a natural stimulant leaf which has a
powerful amphetamine-like substance much the rage
among European pharmacologists) and flying in on one
of the daily qat flights which make up the
mainstay of commerce among Kenya, Ethiopia, and
Somalia, there is scheduled air travel to Hargeisa,
Borama, Burao and many other cities in the north of
Somali territory. Daallo Airlines is Somali owned and
operated, and provides flights from London and Dubai
to Somali communities.

Anyone who would like to know more about the ad
hoc form of government that forms the traditional
culture of the Somalis may want to read Michael van
Notten's fine book The Law of the Somalis which
also explains a lot of what's known about European law
and culture.
(Amazon link)
Michael and I traveled in Somalia and the Somali parts
of Ethiopia on several occasions. His notes were made
available by his family to my friend Spencer MacCallum
who was appointed the literary executor of Michael's
estate. Spencer completed the editing last year.

Somalia is not in a state of civil war. A war for
independence for Somaliland was fought from 1978 to
1991, during a time when Milsted's government was
supporting the International Monetary Fund guarantees
for $333 million in loans to the dictator Siad Barre
who used the money to buy arms and ammo to massacre
30,000 civilians in Berbera and roughly 750,000
civilians in various parts of Somalia. A further $2.6
billion was lent to Barre's government by banks from
Milsted's country and others. The UN was sent in at a
time of bountiful harvests along the Juba and Shebelle
river valleys in Southern Somalia not due to any
famine, but due to the default on those loans. The
objective in December 1992 was not to distribute food,
though some was distributed, but to impose a
centralized, nationalist, socialist government on
Somalia to impose taxes on the Somali people to pay
off the loans of the former dictator.

The Somalis have nicely slipped the Gordian knot of
those debts by refusing to create a successor
government. In the absence of a successor in interest
to the former dictator's government, perhaps Milsted's
government should pursue the estate of the former
dictator (now dead). Or perhaps the IMF and the
banking cartel should recognize that they don't have a
valid counterparty to their loan claims and simply
abandon them. Needless to say, the experience in the
fifteen years since 1991 is evidence that the bankers
want their money back, and are happy to go to
extraordinary lengths to spend the money of taxpayers
in many countries around the world to pursue their
claim. The wonder is that taxpayers like Milsted
continue to blindly support governments that
participate in this absurd United Nationalist
nonsense.

Finally, I know something of anarchic peoples. Most
of the Somalis I know would never agree to the word
"anarchic" in describing themselves. However, I know
many people who are anarchistic or
anarcho-capitalistic. One hundred percent of them
have been conquered by no one.

For my own part, I do believe in a form of government.
I refer to that form of government as
self-government. It is the government of me, by me,
for me. In its general case, self-government is, in
my view, the government of the individual, by the
individual, for his or her own benefit. Self-rule
ought to be called autarchy or auto-archy, but that
word has been usurped by the socialists to describe
dictators.

I do not believe in any externally imposed coercive
form of government. The problem I have with
minimal-statists like Milsted is their inability to
show, anywhere in the world, any government which has
the power to impose itself coercively on its subjects
and is in any meaningful sense limited.

The ideals of a constitutional republic are not lost
upon me. It is a very pretty idea that one can state
limits to government, even write them down in a
Magna Carta or constitution. I find the idea
delightful in theory, but horrid in practice. In
practice, there is not now, and never has been, a
limited form of government that has the powers to tax
and issue money.

One hundred percent of externally imposed coercive
forms of government are unlimited. The fools parading
their ideas of limited government who aren't willing
to pledge not to initiate force are "petulant,
childish, and silly." So, of course, any answer from
their camp is going to consist of, "I'm not but you
are." Sad.

First of all, he seems to think it desirable that the Libertarian Party compromise it's principals in order to make it more palatable to most people, on the grounds that removing 90% of the currently existing government is desirable, or as he puts it, 'more significant in terms of liberty than cutting the remaining 10%'. What he does not mention, is that leaving that 10%, or even 1% of government intact, will eventually cause it to regrow, like a cancer. Frankly, given this inevitable outcome, I would prefer to remove NO government at all, and NO cancer at all, rather than some arbitrary portion of it. Why? Because both government and cancer lead to destruction. If I am doomed to die, I prefer to die sooner, rather than prolong the process of suffering. Just as if society is doomed to collapse, I would prefer for it to collapse now, rather than in 100 years. Why should I prolong it? Because it gives people like Milstead a certain amount of comfort during their lifetimes, and the hell with the future? I see no good reason why the sins of the people today should be paid for by their grandchildren, rather than themselves.

Secondly, he states that 'Neither Rothbard nor Rand's natural rights theories are provable.' I would say that they are provable, not in the sense of physical objects, but rather in the sense of logic, in the same way in which mathematics is provable. You cannot, in the ordinary sense, 'prove' that there is such a thing as the number 2, for instance. I could show you 2 apples, or various symbols which we choose to represent the number 2 (2 or II). But I cannot show you the number 2 itself.
Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence that mathematics is a reality. Not only does it follow self-consistent logical rules, but it can be used to predict the behavior of any number of real-world situations, ranging from calculating change at a grocery store, to predicting the orbit of celestial bodies.

The same applies to 'natural rights'. I cannot take a 'right to life' out of my pocket and show it to you, any more than I can take the number 2 out of my pocket for your inspection. However, there is overwhelming evidence that such rights do exists, since, for among other reasons, the degree to which these rights are respected in a society is an extremely accurate indicator of how well that society does in other ways, such as having a healthy economy, and low crime rate. If rights did not exist, as Milsted claims, there would be no such correlation. Just as, if mathematics did not actually exist, there would be no correlation between mathematics and the behavior of planets in orbit.

Furthermore, the existence of such rights are not only reflected by their use as the predictors of the behavior of societies, but can be proven logically. Below I have pasted an old usenet post of mine, in which I did precisely that. If anyone can find a flaw in my premises or logic, I will be happy to hear it (my email is septithol@yahoo.com )

----

I would say that certain standards of objective morality must exist,
just as certain physical laws do. And just as physical laws can be
described mathematically, the laws of objective morality must follow
certain mathematical principals.
For instance: consider the following 3 possibilities. Either:

A. Everyone has certain rights, or
B. No-one has any rights, or
C. Some people have rights and other people do not.

Mathematically speaking, either A or B could be correct, as it puts
every human being on equality with every other human being. C is not
correct, because it is unbalanced, claiming that some people have
rights and others do not is like claiming that 0=1. Since it is
biological fact that all human beings are members of the same species,
there are no 'Uber-men' who have special rights that everyone else does
not have (such as the purported 'special right' of the government to
commit theft in the form of taxes).

The question then becomes, which is correct out of A or B? Do all
people have certain rights, or does no-one have any rights? Studying
math can help us solve this as well. A mathematical equation might have
more than one solution in a purely theoretical sense, but some
solutions are nonsensical when applied to the real world. Example, a
math question about apples could have as an answer either 1 or -1, but
since you cannot have (in a physical sense) -1 apples, this answer
becomes nonsensical. Since the contention B, that no-one has any rights
would immediately lead to a breakdown of society, if applied, it is an
unworkable solution. So the only solution that makes total sense
regarding rights is that everyone has certain rights, and that these
rights are the same for all human beings. (I am exempting the mentally
retarded, violently insane, and habitual criminals from this, they do
not meet certain criteria necessary to qualify fully as a human being.
Any contention on the part of the government that the majority of the
population should be denied certain rights on this basis, however, is
absurd. A society composed of more than a very tiny minority of
imbeciles, madmen, or criminals would be a contradiction of terms. Such
a society would never be able to organize in the first place, let alone
function on a long term basis).

The question then becomes, 'What rights do all people have'? This too
can be solved by applying mathematical laws. Let us take an example of
a very simple society, you and I are stranded on a desert island, and
have to survive by fishing and knocking coconuts out of trees with long poles. The
question arises during an evening philosophical discussion as to who
owns my body and your body. Since, as I just proved, all people have
equal rights, there are 2 possibilities. Either I own my body and you
own your body, or else the exact opposite is true: you own my body and
I own your body. This second solution, though logically correct, is
nonsensical in the real world. Although some people might want
(immorally and illogically) to own other people's bodies, and hold them
as slaves, no reasonable person would ever give up ownership of their
own body in exchange for owning someone else's. So the only solution
that works in the real world is that I own my body, and you own your
body. The same thing can be applied to the products of our body's
labor. Suppose you spend your time on the island knocking coconuts off
trees and I spend mine catching fish. If we have equal rights, then
either I own the fish that I caught and you own the coconuts you
knocked down, or else the opposite is true, you own my fish, and I own
your coconuts. Once again, the second solution is nonsensical, because
it will not work in the real world. Not only does ownership of your own
body necessarily imply ownership of the products of your body's labor,
but it is a complicated and unfair way to run things. What if you
knocked down 50 coconuts, but I only caught one small fish? I might be
happy to trade, but I doubt you would be. And the inevitable result of
such forced, unfair trades is that after a few days you would probably
stop knocking down any coconuts, simply to hand them over to me, and
spend your time lounging on the beach waiting to take any fish I
caught. A few days after that I would stop fishing and we both starve.
Which is the end result of all such socialistic schemes. The only way
we would both survive is if we traded voluntarily, perhaps if it were
much easier to knock down coconuts than catch fish, we would agree that
one fish I caught could be traded for 5 coconuts from you.

Then along on our little island paradise comes Ms. MacNab. She thinks
that she is 'special' and does not have to find anything productive to
do on the island, such as picking grapes. Instead she proclaims herself
to be the 'government' and tells you and I we have to hand over a
certain percentage of the fish and coconuts in order to feed her and
her poor one legged pet parrot. When we ask her whether this is moral,
ethical, and logical, she produces a peice of bark, on which is written
some complicated laws stating that we have to do it, and says we have
to give her the food because it is written on the bark. And who wrote
this bark? Turns out she wrote it herself. When we continue to object
and demand an ethical basis for this arrangement, she alternately
insults our grammar, refuses to answer, or tells us that our questions
don't 'deserve' an answer. If we continue to object, she threatens us
with a spear she made out of bamboo. She then passes a law saying that
only she, as the government, is allowed to own spears.

What to do, what to do. Possibly we might make our own spears, and kick
Ms. MacNab off the island. But what if she has several friends with
her, also armed with spears, and there are a number of other people on
the island, who, although productive, have decided that it is best for
you and I to hand over part of our coconuts and fish to MacNab? Why did
they decide that? Well it turns out that they aren't really as good as
you and I at getting coconuts and fish, and Ms. MacNab has promised
them part of what she takes from us in return for their support.
What to do then? We could build a boat and get off the island, only Ms.
MacNab has made it illegal for anyone except her and her friends to own
boats, and almost all the other islands are controlled by similiar
parasites, as well. So Ms. MacNab and her friends live pretty well for
a while. The only problem with this scheme is that it teaches large
numbers of people to be parasites, because that is easier than working.
And the more parasites there are, the more they are going to demand
from those people still working to get fish and coconuts. A number of
things happen then. First of all, an increasing number of fishermen
start lying about how many fish they have caught, in order to turn over
fewer fish to the island's government. The government makes the absurd
claim that they are being 'robbed' by the lying fishermen. Some of the
lying fisherman are confined in a bamboo cage, which does not stop very
many of the others from lying, and actually worsens the situation since
the remaining fisherman now have to turn over even MORE of their catch
to support the previously productive people who are locked in the cage.
However, it is not possible to evade reality forever. Eventually when
the amount of fish taken by Ms. MacNab and her friends becomes high
enough, those people who are still fishing only bother to catch enough
fish for themselves and their family to eat raw, immediately, leaving
Ms. MacNab nothing to seize, and spend the rest of the day playing
checkers with the pebbles on the beach. What follows after that is mass
starvation of most of the people on the island.

An interesting missiveto say the least!
Would you mind if I remarked "Springtime for Hitler" here?(1)

And, taken completely with the TLE's masthead comment ("The Founding Fathers made that very mistake..."), with reference to the last remark of " This doesn't make them idiots. It just makes them the boys who didn't "apply themselves" on report cards-still restless, but technically all grown up" kind of puts a frame around the entire thing.
One fortuitous remark complements the other.

On the one hand, the founders didn't think 'outside the box.'
In their minds, government was the answer, never mind that it was government which had caused their troubles to begin with. They thought that a different form of tyranny would serve them well.
But, tyrannyin any form, is still just that: Tyranny. It serves no one, not even the tyrant, for even the tyrant is afraid of what becomes him/her, should the reins be loosed for even the merest of moments.

On the other hand, those boys didn't apply themselves well, or they would have understood that government in virtually =any= form, is anathema to the very idea of liberty. One cannot employ government to 'enforce' liberty, asin the main (and please, forgive the aptbut colloquial vernacular aphorism of the 1960's, regarding 'fighting for peace' in Vietnam) one cannot fuck for virginity.

Ergo, one cannot be for government, and be for liberty at the same time. You simply cannot be 'half-pregnant' or half-free.
Sewage, or wine.
Make up your mind.

Nevertheless, Bush has it within himself to end every misery inflicted upon those whom he has sworn to make miserableby dint of his authority to do so. That he has not?
The emperor has neither intellectual clothes, nor an honest mind.

That he has not makes him immoral, vindictive for pecuniary purposes, and completely unethical: A government thug.

And, that you would compare Bush to the mere everyday man, I cannot comprehend.

He has had it within his power to end many evil things connected directly with government.
He has done not anything to move in that direction, period.

Bush is a dictator. He has exerted dictatorial powers, has he not?
One whose actions fall within a definition, must of necessity be the thingor person, described.

There is no such thing as a 'compassionate dictator,' as the term is entirely oxymoronic, unless one wishes to invert the meaning of compassion to reflect the idea of inflicted misery.

One may surmise only that Bush is happy with the status quo.
Joking around with another dictator becomes him.
The closet analog is Adolph and Il Duce.

Come election time we'll be swapping despots, and =not= men of honor, as honor does not soil itself by consorting with liars, cheats, thieves, and murderers.

I read L. Neil Smith's "Teaching Pigs to Sing" and was struck by one thing: Rather than address the substance of Dr. Milsted's point of view, Mr. Smith resorts to numerous ad hominem attacks.

Mr. Smith:

Implies that those who disagree with him are "pigs."

Shared with us his and his wife's anecdotal experience and perceptions of the intellect of PhDs they've been acquainted with, suggesting that they are not necessarily intelligent. This is an apparent swipe at Dr. Milsted, whom Mr. Smith does not know.

Implies that Dr. Milsted is a "useful idiot" and an "undiagnosed Republican."

Asserts that Dr. Milsted is "dead wrong" that a 90% reduction in government is more significant than the last 10% and that Dr. Milsted is "downright bucket-headed." It is unclear what Mr. Smith means by the term "bucket headed," but the reader should likely assume this is pejorative.

Grandiosely suggests that he, Mr. Smith, has diagnosed the fatal flaw in the strategy of the Founding Fathers. Presumably, Mr. Smith believes that the Founders should have enacted pure anarchy, despite the indisputable fact that British troops were on the march during that period. Mr. Smith's article later suggests a different military tactic: ". . .one guy with mud on his boots and a sharpened stick in his hands, defending his own territory." Readers of THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE may be interested in historical or theoretical support for the efficacy of this novel approach. If you do so, please explain whether muddy boots are optional.

Makes the (perhaps metaphorical) medical claim that, "Leave even 0.01% of the germs in your system, and you're going to get sick again." This claim/metaphor is unsubstantiated, but seems utterly false, as humans are constantly exposed to and carrying germs that, to this admitted non-medical-expert, do not present or manifest as "disease."

Offers a novel theory that's contrary to Thomas Jefferson's observation that the "price of liberty is eternal vigilance," when Mr. Smith suggests: "If we were to win now, without having won on fundamental principles [presumably Mr. Smith's vision of complete anarchy or "zero aggression"], our children, or their children, would end up fighting the same battle, all over again, a century from now."

Shares with us his apparently highly conflicted psychological process when he writes: "I have remained as impersonal in my reply so far as it is possible for me to be. Perhaps not very, I confess I am a man of considerable passion, and stupidity infuriates me quite as much as evil. Perhaps more. These statements of Milsted's are among the stupidest I've ever seen." The casual reader of Mr. Smith's article would have a difficult time not concluding that Mr. Smith has been highly personal in his attacks and character assassination of Dr. Milsted, a person Mr. Smith does not know by his own admission.

Seems to be in major denial when Mr. Smith asserts that the "frilly-dillies" (presumably moderate Libertarians) "prevented the Libertarian Party from achieving any visible differentiation from the Republicans and Democrats because they themselves were afraid of what they were supposed to be believing in." The casual reader of the LP's materials over the years and currently would have a difficult time not concluding that it is substantially different than the Republicans and Democrats. Should Mr. Smith not be in denial on this matter, this reader requests that he itemize where he sees the LP being indistinguishable from the major parties.

Asserts that he is "better" than Dr. Milsted when he writes: "Start your own Whimpertarian Party instead of hijacking the one your betters built."

Seems to believeperhaps delusionallythat his science fiction writing is tantamount to contemporary political discourse. "I sat down and wrote my first novel, communicating libertarianism the way I still believe it ought to be communicated. . ."

Seems to claim the ability to read other's minds: ". . .resented me for doing somethinganythingwithout having consulted them about it first."

Expresses a morose worldview: "I've already wasted the better part of my life as a genuine libertarian. . ."

Wishes physical harm on those he disagrees with: "Or, they [Libertarians Mr. Smith disagrees with] could just go play in traffic. The world will be a better, cleaner place for it."

As a compassionate human being, I truly wish the best for Mr. Smith. His article certainly appears heartfelt. While I am not a trained psychologist, I do, however, suggest that he consider anger-management counseling, as his article seems filled with a profound level of venom that I cannot believe is healthy for him.

I hope I am incorrect about this. I do suggest thatwith our nation at war, our civil liberties under assault, and government spending growing at a rapid paceMr. Smith's article appears highly disproportionate and misguided.

You know, it's always hilarious when somebody repeatedly accuses you of being or doing thingsas if you were trying to keep them a deep, dark secretthat you have been trying to shout about from the housetops for years. I used to get a lot of that on right-wing talk radio when I was a regular guest on a local program. People would call up and say, "Why, you're . . . you'rea libertarian!"

And I was. Still am. I confess it.

Having read this Robert Capozzi person's "letter" (for the most part, simply an accusatory regurgitation, albeit without context, of things I said in my recent essay "Teaching Pigs To Sing") any reader of The Libertarian Enterprise can plainly see that it's possible to learn a very great deal about a person from what he has written, and that it isn't at all necessary to read whatever it is that serves him as a mind.

He's exposing himself for what he is, in plain view and broad daylight, for everyone to see.

That was certainly true of Carl Milstead, and it's even more true (if such a thing is possible) of this Robert Capozzi individual, who, judging from the snotty, sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual tone of his letter, probably sits right behind Carl Milsted's folding Samsonite chair at Mensa meetings.

Or aspires to.

No matter. All of the squirming and wriggling and posturing and maundering that creatures like Capozzi and Milsted may do will not disguise the fact that they have gleefully eviscerated the last best chance Americans had to regain our lost legacy of individual freedom. They may think they know what they're doing, but they are only what Joseph Goebbels called "useful idiots", unwitting allies to George Bush and Hillary Clinton, and friends of oppression, terror, and death.

Quote:Getting our borders under controlIllegal aliens contribute vast sums to cost overruns at hospitals. They're frequently uninsured, yet they receive treatment anyway (hospitals are there to help first, and make money second-no one with any compassion at all would suggest the injured or ill be turned away at the door). But none of those costs are reimbursed, which means hospitals have got to get payment for those charity cases elsewhere.
Unquote.

Pardon me for saying so, but you're thinking along socialistic lines: Treating the symptom instead of its cause. Your statement above is operating from a false premise.
This is not unlike as with gun-control crowd.

I suppose I might chalk it up to being immersed in this environment for so long, that your mind is becoming 'infected' with the group-think which pervades every aspect of life in 'these United States.'

Think: If you were a doctor, and someone came to your doorstep =demanding= that you attend them, what would your action(s) be?

I don't know about yourself, but if that person had one foot in the grave, I'd help plant the one onefirmly so. There's only one person anyone has the absolute right to make any demands of: himself.

The 'answer' to your conundrum isn't closing the borders, or even controlling them. It isn't even evicting those illegals (Hell, I invite them with open arms: They might be the very ones who help to unload the burden called 'government').

Rather, it IS getting rid of the government largess which invites every 'illegal'and legalTom, Dick, and Harriet to come dip their cups into that government troughfor free.
And, you've entirely omitted discussing just how that is made possible: Taxation. Without the ability to tax, government has no ability to enforce its edictshell, it couldn't even make any of those!

If hospitals were free to turn away anyone not willing to pay, there would be a lot less for you to complain of regarding costs. But then? They (those hospitals) would be competing for customers, and not grudgingly accepting them.

And while you might complain about how 'callous' and/or 'uncaring' my remarks are, you neglect to consider that compassion cannot be dictated. It's the bleeding hearts out there who've made our respective lives just as miserable as they can, becauseand you should know this by now: Misery loves company, most especially a captive audience made so by government edict.

As you've so aptly pointed outregarding the Clintonian supposition on medical care (do note that I don't say 'health care'because that is what you're supposed to do for yourself), mandating anything (and getting away with that) ultimately causes it to become the sine qua non for mandating everything else which follows. Think: Precedent. Government thrives on it.

So, yes: I would indeed shove that gurney right out the door, regardless who lay upon itespecially if the one demanding admittance threatened me with 'government action.'
The act of 'asking' is one thing, the fact of demanding is quite another. Every law of man makes demands, while at the same time demeaning, and devaluating individual liberty.

In finality, then, it's not the borders or their crossings, or the ones crossing those borders.
One might remark: "It's not the illegals; it's the government, stupid!"
The solution is to attack the problem itself, and not those who've become the symptoms of the problem.

I have no desire to get into a spitballing contest between Messrs. Smith
and Milsted, but I would like to correct a few errirs in both postings,
if I maid do that and if facts are acceptabibull at this thyme.

Mr. Milsted, il dit que natural rights sont wrong, which I find not right.
But Mr. Smith is wrong when he implies like Ayn Rand was a Stalinist. No,
I am sorry, that is pure redderick, Mr. Rand was not a Stalinist. He was
a fan of capitolism and indivivittle rites. Nor is mass murder tantamount
to patents and copy, right.

Due to my many years both of being older than other people, as well as a
story rider, and also a physical sighingtist, plus don't forget my masstery
of history and tagticks, I believe I hole the trump car here. Let that be
a lesson to you. And my believe in liberty is third two none.

L. Neil Smith ("Teaching Pigs to Fly,"
could benefit from a perusal of Barbara Branden's recent lecture
"Objectivism and Rage," the text of which is now
on line.
While her words are not offered with Mr. Smith's own tendencies toward
perfervid over-the-top character assassination in mind, I am sure that
he can profitably adapt her insights to his own case.